Woodson v. Murdock et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could constitutionally require a person to pay a fee in order to exercise their right to vote. The case was brought by William Woodson, a black man living in Arkansas, who was denied the right to vote in the 1874 election because he could not afford to pay the poll tax. Woodson argued that the poll tax was a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying citizens the right to vote based on race. The Supreme Court agreed with Woodson, ruling that the poll tax was unconstitutional. The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment was intended to protect the right to vote regardless of race, and that the poll tax was a form of racial discrimination. The Court also held that the poll tax was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying citizens equal protection under the law. The Court's decision in Woodson v. Murdock et al. was a major victory for civil rights activists, as it established that states could not deny citizens the right to vote based on their ability to pay a fee. The decision also set a precedent for future cases involving the right to vote, and helped to ensure that all citizens would have equal access to the ballot box.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Woodson v. Murdock et al., arguing that a state law which provided for imprisonment of debtors was not unconstitutional. He argued that the Constitution did not prohibit states from enacting laws to protect their citizens, and this particular law was designed to do just that by preventing creditors from taking advantage of debtors who were unable to pay them back. Furthermore, he argued that it would be wrong for the Court to interfere with a state's right to regulate its own affairs when there is no clear violation of constitutional rights involved. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while some may disagree with this particular law, it should remain in effect as long as it does not violate any constitutional provisions or principles established by Congress or other authorities.